The only reason for WotC to change is so that they can be "cooler" <snip>
A more appropriate word for "cooler" in the business world is "goodwill" which is actually, on occasion, accounted for as an asset by market analysts and actuaries.
You're not showing causation, though. I do not believe that 4E's sales are affected by the existence or lack of a license, nor by the quality of it.
Morrus, I know I'm not SHOWING causation here, but do you believe that Necromancer games's 4e sales were not affected by the existence or lack of a license or the quality of it?
Second question for you Morrus...the sales of 4e WotBS that you are mentioning...is that basically the same as community supporter money? I mean, if I become a community supporter, would I be listed as a patron of WotBS? I ask because I have often waffled back and forth about becoming a supporter if only for solely 3e stuffs, gaming philosopy articles, etc. I would likely never use 4e WotBS, and if it were not included in the subscription at all, it would not in any way influence my decision to be a subscriber. If, however, you're using the numbers of people who have gone out and bought JUST the adventure path, then I'd say GOOD FOR YOU GUYS as you seem to be perhaps the only 3pp for 4e that is truly thriving. (I mean the accolades quite sincerely btw, I wouldn't want that to seem sarcastic in the slightest.)
Now my answer to the crux of the point(s). It seems two lines of discussion have emerged:
1.
Is it better for 3pps to support pathfinder or 4e? I'd say the answer to that overall has become fairly clear, apart from perhaps ENworld (I honestly think that's not true for other 3pps, including, sadly, Open Design, the only company besides WotC that I've bought 4e material from).
2. (The real question).
Is it a good idea for WotC to support 3pps? I can't say I have enough info to provide more than anecdotal evidence and some "perspective driven" logic. WotC HAD me as a customer for 4e when I thought there would be robust 3pp support. I hate WotC adventures by and large (though the do put out some gems on occasion). I find their settings fairly generic/boring personally (apart from more extreme settings like Ravenloft and Dark Sun). So, for me to switch, I needed to have good adventure and setting support for 4e. So far, it is few and far between. I own the 4e adventures from Open Design, and I already own WotBS in 3e, so I don't feel the need to purchase it again (though reviews certainly suggest that it, as well, would be a great purchase should our group convert to 4e.)
So, here are three
possible benefits to WotC to give 3pps support:
1. Goodwill. Many people don't like WotC right now, and PAIZO has a ton of goodwill. Sure, lots of people don't decide on what to buy based on goodwill, but some DO. Heck, there's not really that much I want from ENworld at the moment, but I keep almost purchasing a membership based
solely upon goodwill. (To Morrus, the main barrier is actually the monthly sub of $3...I'd more happily pay an annual fee of $36.)
2. Draw in people that want to play other worlds. If the producers of, say Oathbound, or Arcanis, or Iron Kingdoms thought that they could make money in 4e, they just might draw in some sales for themselves and more importantly
draw in customers to switch to this newfangled 4e thingy.
3. Market perceptions. There has been (and will likely continue to be) debate about if PAIZO is getting to be as big of a market force as WotC. We've all seen the government carefully use the word "recession" and never "depression" because people's market perceptions affect spending. Further, "market leader" can mean much more than "total sales" in terms of volume or profit. Market leader can mean total assets (which includes goodwill and partnership). Market leader can mean that they are actually leading others; that are others
following them. We are beginning to see WotC as no longer the market leader in that sense.
Market leader can also mean "power to control the market". I posit that, as things are now, should WotC change to 5e in two years that they will have very very few 3pps moving with them. This will likely affect the number of freelancers interested in learning the system as well as affect goodwill and customer interest in 3pp IP as "not synergistic" with their system. On the other hand, should, in two years, PAIZO release Second Edition Pathfinder, I would imagine quite a few of the PATHFINDER OGL companies will follow.
I'll end the post there, with the admission that these are economic concepts set in sound economic and actuarial modelling (not of this market, but generally). They are not data, but they might be something for people at WotC to think a bit more deeply about (with their own data that they do have).